In a move aimed at making courts more survivor-centric, the Supreme Court has taken note of a comprehensive set of guidelines prepared by the National Judicial Academy (NJA) to help judges adopt a more sensitive and compassionate approach while dealing with sexual assault and other vulnerable cases. The court has directed all High Courts across the country to ensure that judges undergo sensitivity training based on these recommendations.
The guidelines were prepared following directions issued by the Supreme Court in February during proceedings arising from a case involving allegations under rape and Pocso laws. The court had expressed concern over the use of graphic descriptions in judicial orders and observed that justice must be grounded not only in legal principles but also in compassion and empathy for victims.
While dealing with the merits of the case, the court also raised broader concerns about the lack of sensitivity sometimes displayed in judicial proceedings involving survivors of sexual violence.
The guidelines by the judicial academy urge judges to avoid language that reinforces stereotypes or suggests that a victim’s clothing, behaviour, lifestyle, marital status or sexual history has any bearing on consent or credibility. It reiterates principles laid down in several Supreme Court judgments, which warned courts against relying on gender stereotypes while deciding sexual offence cases.
One of the most notable features of the report is an extensive glossary identifying words and expressions that should be avoided in judgments.
Terms such as “helpless woman”, “lost her chastity”, “victim of another person’s lust”, “easy virtue”, “satisfy illicit lust”, and “outraged modesty” are flagged as outdated, stereotypical or potentially harmful. Judges are encouraged to instead use neutral expressions such as “survivor”, “victim”, “complainant”, “sexual assault”, “violation of bodily autonomy” and “sexual violence”.
The guidelines also advise against references to “honour”, “shame”, “character” or “modesty”, arguing that such language shifts attention away from the accused’s conduct and places undue focus on the survivor.
Similarly, terms such as “mistress”, “kept woman”, “concubine” and derogatory references to sex workers or LGBTQIA+ persons are discouraged in favour of more respectful and legally appropriate terminology.
Another key recommendation is the incorporation of empathy and emotional intelligence into judicial training. The report argues that legal expertise alone is insufficient in cases involving vulnerable victims and that judges must also develop soft skills that enable them to understand trauma and respond appropriately.
The report also outlines several practical measures to make courts more welcoming for survivors and vulnerable witnesses. These include ensuring legal assistance, on-camera trials, protecting the identity of survivors, pre-trial counselling, ensuring unnecessary persons are not present during testimony and monitoring witness protection measures and victim-support services.
The Supreme Court itself had observed that a fair justice system requires both sound legal reasoning and an environment rooted in compassion, humanity and understanding.
The bench had noted that victims often relive their trauma during trials, particularly when subjected to graphic courtroom discussions, intrusive cross-examination, or insensitive language in judgments. It stressed that courts must create an environment of understanding and dignity rather than one that deepens psychological distress.
To address these concerns, the Supreme Court had requested the judicial academy to constitute an expert committee to prepare draft guidelines for judges and judicial institutions. The committee was chaired by former Supreme Court judge Justice Aniruddha Bose and included experts from law enforcement, academia, and the legal profession.(IT)
